Baker's Refusal to Make Same-Sex Wedding Cake now Before U.S. Supreme Court

War on Christianity - American Front

Two major battles happening in the Supreme Courts of America and Canada.

It's time to pray people!

Thomson Reuters 

The U.S. Supreme Court justices including Anthony Kennedy, front row second from left, are hearing arguments in the case of whether certain businesses can refuse service to gay couples if they oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds. (J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press)

The U.S. Supreme Court appears closely divided in the case of a Christian baker's refusal to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, with likely pivotal vote Justice Anthony Kennedy posing tough questions, including whether a Colorado civil rights commission that ruled on the issue was unduly biased against religion.

The nine justices heard arguments in Washington on whether certain businesses can refuse service to gay couples if they oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds.

The case concerns an appeal by Jack Phillips, a baker who runs Masterpiece Cakeshop in the Denver suburb of Lakewood. A state court had ruled that Phillips's refusal violated a Colorado anti-discrimination law.

Kennedy, a conservative who sometimes sides with the court's four liberals in major cases, raised concerns about issuing a ruling siding with the baker that would give a green light to discrimination against gay people.

He mentioned the possibility of a baker putting a sign in his window saying he would not make cakes for gay weddings and wondering if that would be "an affront to the gay community."

But citing comments made by a commissioner on the state civil rights panel that ruled against the baker, Kennedy said there was evidence of "hostility to religion" and questioned whether that panel's decision could be allowed to stand.

Hostility to religion, ya think?

In one of the biggest cases of the conservative-majority court's nine-month term, the justices must decide whether the baker's action was constitutionally protected, meaning he can avoid punishment under the Colorado law.

Phillips, represented by the conservative Christian advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom, contends that law violated his rights to freedom of speech and free exercise of religion under the Constitution's First Amendment. The Supreme Court arguments focused on his free speech claim, based on the idea that creating a custom cake is a form of free expression.

Baker Jack Phillips contends the 2015 landmark gay marriage law violated his rights to freedom of speech and free exercise of religion under the U.S. Constitution. (Associated Press)

'Licence to discriminate'

The couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, call the baker's refusal a simple case of unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation. Mullins and Craig are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, which has argued that Phillips's legal team is advocating for a "licence to discriminate" that could have broad repercussions beyond gay rights.

Several of the justices asked questions that suggested they are concerned about how far a ruling in favour of the baker might extend. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan wondered whether a hairstylist, chef or a makeup artist could refuse service, claiming their services are also speech protected by the Constitution.

"Why is there no speech in creating a wonderful hairdo?" Kagan asked.

Let me explain this, Justice Kagan. A hairdo does not normally express ones sexuality. It is roughly equivalent to the baker refusing to sell the couple an already prepared cake or a newly created cake that does not reflect gay marriage. That's not what you are discussing. I hope you can see the difference.

Kennedy said many examples of other businesses that were implicated involved free speech rights. He asked U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, the Trump administration lawyer who backed the baker, what would happen if the court rules for the baker and bakers nationwide then started receiving requests to not bake cakes for gay weddings.

"Would the government feel vindicated?" Kennedy asked.

"...receiving requests to not bake cakes for gay weddings?" Are you serious? 

Conservative members of the court, including Chief Justice John Roberts, appeared more sympathetic to the baker.

The Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in a landmark 2015 ruling written by Kennedy, one of the court's five conservatives. The 81-year-old Kennedy, who has joined the court's four liberals in major decisions on issues, such as abortion and gay rights, could cast the deciding vote. Kennedy also is a strong proponent of free speech rights.

A ruling favouring Phillips could open the door for businesses that offer creative services to spurn gay couples by invoking religious beliefs, as some wedding photographers, florists and others already have done. Conservatives have filed other lawsuits also seeking to limit the reach of the 2015 gay marriage ruling.

The Denver couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, call the baker's refusal a simple case of unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation. (David Zalubowski/Associated Press)

Hundreds of demonstrators on both sides of the dispute rallied outside the white marble courthouse. Supporters of Phillips waved signs that read, "We got your back Jack." As Mullins and Craig made their way into the courthouse, the two men led their supporters in chants of "Love Wins."

The case highlights tensions between gay rights proponents and conservative Christians who oppose same-sex marriage, as illustrated in comments made by demonstrators on Tuesday.

"Religious liberty is the most important right we have been given in the Constitution, and this case exemplifies it," said Paula Oas, 64, a Maryland resident. "I believe Jack is not harming others."

Sherrill Fields, 67, a gay Virginia resident, said she feared that if the court sides with the baker, different types of businesses will turn away gay customers.

"This kind of thing will come out of the woodwork," Fields said. "People and businesses of all sorts will deny us service. Restaurants, hairdressers, doctors, tow truck drivers, anybody that provides a service."

This is amazing!

The legal fight broke out in 2012 when Phillips told Mullins and Craig that due to his Christian beliefs, he would not be able to make a cake to celebrate their wedding.

The two men married in Massachusetts, but wanted to celebrate their nuptials with friends in Colorado. At the time, Colorado allowed civil unions but not marriage between same-sex couples.

Now I'm really confused! It was illegal to have a same-sex wedding in Colorado in 2012, so how can a baker be sanctioned for refusing to make a wedding cake for an event celebrating something that was illegal at the time? 

How is it that it got past the Court of Appeals? And why didn't the Colorado Supreme Court put an end to this farce? The US Supreme Court should have tossed this case out in 5 minutes!

The couple turned to the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a complaint on their behalf, saying Phillips had violated Colorado state law barring businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission found that Phillips had violated the law and ordered him to take remedial measures including staff training and the filing of quarterly compliance reports. In August 2015, the Colorado Court of Appeals also ruled against Phillips.

The Colorado Supreme Court refused to hear the case, prompting Phillips to appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mississippi Passes Controversial 'Religious Freedom' Bill

From BBC US & Canada

Mississippi Legislature - Governor Phil Bryant signed the law despite criticism that it discriminates

The governor of Mississippi has signed a controversial bill that allows businesses to refuse service to gay couples based on religious beliefs.

Governor Phil Bryant signed HB1523 into law on Tuesday amid opposition from equal rights groups and businesses.

He said the bill "protects sincerely held religious beliefs and moral convictions".

Protesters say the bill would allow for lawful discrimination of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

The bill comes at a time when numerous US states are passing or considering similar laws.

North Carolina recently passed a bill that revokes protections for LGBT people and requires transgender individuals to use restrooms based on their biological gender identity.

Major companies and CEOs signed on to a letter urging North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory to repeal the law.

Tech company PayPal has withdrawn its plan to open an operations centre, which would have employed 400 people, over the law.

The governor of Georgia rejected a similar bill after pressure from major companies that do business in the state.

Mr Bryant (left) signed the bill into law despite pressure from equal-rights groups

States have been drawing up religious freedom laws, largely under pressure from religious groups, in response to the US Supreme Court ruling last summer legalising gay marriage. And also, I believe, in response to the gay couple in Oregon successfully suing a Christian Bakery for refusing to decorate a cake celebrating homosexuality.

The intention of the Mississippi bill, the "Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act," is to protect people who think marriage is between one man and one woman, that sexual relations should only happen in marriages and that gender is not changeable.

Mr Bryant, defending himself on Twitter after signing the bill, said the bill does not limit rights of citizens under the US Constitution and was designed to "prevent government interference in the lives of the people".

Churches, religious charities and private business can use the law to legally not serve people whose lifestyles they disagree with. Governments must still provide services, but individual government employees can use the law to opt out.

The bill also ensures that anyone who wishes to establish "sex-specific standards" for restrooms and dressing rooms is free to do so.

"This bill flies in the face of the basic American principles of fairness, justice and equality and will not protect anyone's religious liberty," the American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement following the bill's passage.

"Far from protecting anyone from 'government discrimination' as the bill claims, it is an attack on the citizens of our state, and it will serve as the Magnolia State's badge of shame."

Another skirmish in the war on Christianity, the bill would give people like those who owned the bakery in Oregon the right to refuse to violate their consciences and denegrate the sanctity of marriage, without having their business destroyed by do-gooder, human rights councils.

Of course, you will never hear that angle from the liberal media.

Anti-Israel Ads OK’d to Run in Boston Subways

Boston Strong is not supposed to refer to smell

Boston's north subway station

BOSTON (JTA) – The Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority approved the display of an anti-Israel ad it had previously rejected.

The poster, which features a large photograph of a child and the word “violence” in large, bold letters, accuses Israel’s military of using US tax dollars to kill 2,000 Palestinian children since September 2000, and calls for the end of US military aid to Israel.

I have no idea how accurate these numbers are, but I do know the inferences here are dishonest, deceitful propaganda. Most of the Palestinian children who died in the summer of 2014, did so because Hamas deliberately fired rockets from school grounds, hospitals, and housing complexes. They did this knowing that the IDF would return fire to those locations. 

Their purpose was to create as many civilian casualties as possible, because that would cause gullible, undiscerning people to condemn Israel as deliberately targeting women and children. Hamas has to win the propaganda war because it cannot win the military war, and MBTA is helping them. Hamas is responsible for the deaths of most of those children.
These accusations were documented by Amnesty International.

From a previous blog post: Palestinian armed groups, including Hamas’s military wing, fired thousands of rockets and mortars indiscriminately toward civilian areas in Israel, according to Amnesty International, and also endangered Palestinian civilians by reportedly launching rockets from within civilian facilities, including schools and a hospital in Gaza.

It is one of three ads that was initially approved by the MBTA in June 2014, but later removed. At the time, the governing body of the state’s public transportation system said the ads violated its policy against language that demeans or disparages individuals or groups.

The American Civil Liberties Union challenged the rejection on behalf of the Palestinian rights organization, Palestine Advocacy Project. The group, formerly called Ads Against Apartheid, asserts that the poster is a form of protected First Amendment speech and should be allowed in a public space. The agency’s decision to approve came after the ACLU persuaded it that the ad does not violate the MBTA’s policy against demeaning ads, according to Sarah Wunsch, deputy legal director of the ACLU’s Massachusetts branch.

In a statement to JTA, a spokesman for the MBTA said these advertisements comply with its guidelines, that it described as “viewpoint neutral standards for all advertising displayed on MBTA property.”
Astonishing!

“To reduce unnecessary litigation which can arise from issue-based ads of this nature, the MBTA is currently considering whether to amend its advertising guidelines and in the future will not accept ads concerning political issues or matters of public debate,” the statement continued.

Jeremy Burton, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston said in a statement provided to JTA: “We do not believe that the MBTA nor any other government authority should regularly be in the business of banning speech. However, spreading distortions and inaccuracies about a complex political situation will achieve no positive benefit in the search for a lasting end to the conflict in the region, a cause to which we and all reasonable people are committed.”